weekend and as the presidential campaign kicks into high gear, the conservative political action committee cross roads gps went up with an ad this week in ten swing states reportedly the center piece of a $25 million tv buy. the piece is not your typical attack on president obama. instead, tapping into voters' economic anxiety. here is part of the ad. i always loved watching the kids play basketball. i still do even though things have changed. they can't find jobs to get their careers started and i can't afford to retire and now we are all leving together again. >> earlier i spoke to cross roads cofounder and former george w. bush advisor karl rove and asked him why the ad doesn't teak on the president more directly? >> first of all, an effective ad is in part an effective narrative. and that is based on what

people believe they know and what the american people think they know and it is accurate is that their economic condition is not particularly good. a fragile recovery. the worst since any recession since world war ii. unemployment at high levels. what we wanted to do with the ad is sort of resonate if you will with the feelings of the american people. recent polls show that between 75% to 80% of the american people still think the economy is still in recession. and two thirds think the president has not helped the economy or made things worse. >> how much of the fact that president obama is still popular with the american public. they say they like him a lot more than they like his policies. >> they don't like him that much better than they like his policies. when running against an incumbent you have to get people to vote for you if you are the challenger who voted for the incumbent in the first

place. >> and they he don't like to admit they made a mistake. >> you want permission for the doubts to rise to the surface. he let me down. i'm disappointed and regretful that he has done the things he has done. >> you wrote in the wall street column that mitt romney is is now the narrow favorite to win this election. why? >> his most powerful moments were i don't want to be the president of red states and blue states but the united states. he is in trouble. he has got ratings in the 40s. ballot is virtually tied depending on what poll you look at. critical battleground states clearly leaning towards romney or up for grabs. he is not good on defense. on sort of defending what he has done. he has turned out to be incredibly lousy on projecting

forward looking vision. and i just think romney is going to be better on offense. it is easier to be he fighting in a lot of different places poking at the president's record as long as he shares his own vision and for romney to get where he needs to go. >> when you were trying to get president bush elected his may 2004 approval rating 49%. president obama's may, 2012, 47%. george w. bush won reelection. that is not that -- >> and if you look at where our ballot position was it is roughly comparable. there was a hidden strength. first of all, remember this thing. the 2004 election was more about what? security. about terrorism. iraq. the world. the place that we found ourselves. >> the president was -- the iraq war was beginning to be quite unpopular. >> but the president was seen as strong on these issues. the greatest strength any president has is the vision of

himself as a strong leader. president bush in april of 2004, 64% of the american people said they felt he was a strong leader. 36% said he he was not. president obama, 51-48. that is a big difference. at the end of the day people will vote for an incumbent president even if they don't necessarily agree with him if they cyathium as a strong and effective leader. they he give him the benefit of the doubt. you are strong and effective and you you may know more than i do so. president obama has the policy he doesn't have the reserve of strong leadership to go on. >> some people look at the 47% approval rating and look at the first six months of economic growth in the election year and they say because of the growth going to be between 2% to 3% most people figure that president obama is going to win 51%. projects to 51% of the two-party vote and a narrow election victory. >> there is a big difference

between 2% growth and 3% growth. it is 50% difference. we won't know what it is. here is the problem. >> is that the piggest factor, ouch the economy grows in here. >> the nature of the i'm lgorit -- personal circumstances and unemployment play a part of it. >> how people feel about themselves. >> 16% of the american people feel that their economic position is better under president obama. the lowest number of any incumbent president running for reelection. and many with higher numbers got defeat. >> let me ask about the attempt to link mitt romney to george w. bush and his policies. clearly a central part of the obama strategy. does romney have to separate himself from the bush policies? >> romney will have his own policies. he just needs to try and be himself. things change in four years.

why do you think it is president obama a 51-48. because he is blaming everybody else. bush's fault. the tsunami's fault. you want to look strong. >> the public still thinks that president bush's policies are as much to blame for the economy as president obama. in the polls. >> sounds like it comes across as an excuse and people don't really like people offering excuses. look, i could have done better but it is the guy before me. i said that he was unpatriotic and an unmed kateed disaster but i was wrong it was worse than i thought. i was so stupid i didn't know what to do. this is not a wood message to run on. >> thanks for being here. >> you bet. >> when we come back, dozens of

man: 1939 -- my parents ran across an ad for a hot dog cart. my mother said, "well, maybe we ought to buy this hot dog cart and set it up someplace." so my parents went to bank of america. they met with the branch manager and they said, "look, we've got this little hot dog cart, and it's on a really good corner. let's see if we can buy the property." and the branch manager said, "all right, i will take a chance with the two of you." and we've been loyal to bank of america for the last 71 years. how math and science kind of makes the world work. in high school, i had a physics teacher by the name of mr. davies.

he made physics more than theoretical, he made it real for me. we built a guitar, we did thingwith electronics and mother boards. that's where the interest in engineering came from. so now, as an engineer, i have a career that speaks to that passion. thank you, mr. davies. every communications provider is different but centurylink is committed to being a different kind of communications company. ♪

we link people and fortune 500 companies nationwide and around the world. and we will continue to free you to do more and focus on what matters. the battle between the obama administration and the catholic church intensified this week as 43 groups including the archdiocese of washington and new york catholic university and the notre dame fileder damiano

lawsuits challenging the mandate requiring payment for contraceptive services including sterilization and the so called morning after pill. so colin, let's start with you. how strong a legal case do the catholic plaintiffs have here? >> this is an extremely strong legal case, paul. it is based on two things. based on the first amendment and free exercise clause and based on a law that was passed in the '90s, a hugely bipartisan law called the religious freedom restoration act and that basically says that for the government to put any burden on rehe lidgee relis to pass a high level of scrutiny and make sure any burden it puts on is the least restrictive or intrusive way of accomplishing its goal. it is clear that the contraception mandate doesn't do that. it is no where close to it.

i think that is what they are look at here. >> bill, there is a supreme court precedent, though, a 1990 precedent written by justice scalia in the famous peyote case that said religions must abide by this kind of regulation as long as it applies to everybody. >> generally applicable. >> that is why what colin says is important. the law was passed largely in response to that decision. >> the 1993. >> and it puts the burden on them. the facts of it are the obama administration has given so many waivers on this law. hard to argue a case is that compelling if you are making exceptions. a vaccination and you are evercoming some group you have to vaccinate everybody. the second is to do it in the least intrusive way. the facts are really against them on this. >> well, a large part of this will hang on whether or not therefore this is the least

restrictive means and the administration says this is a reasonable compromise and we worked it out and they don't have to pay for the con value contraceptive services themselves, the insurance companies will do that. what is wrong with that? >> a couple of that. a university like notre dame self-insurances so it is really sort of irrelevant. a lot of people are saying is this act actually going to apply and the supreme court already ruled on that in a case in 2006 when they said that the religious freedom restoration act directly applies to the federal government. no question that the obama administration is going to be on the hook here. >> why didn't the administration try to work more closely with the bishops on this because it comes through in the lawsuit, particularly the notre dame lawsuit that they kind of lay out we attempted to work with them and they directly rejected our

attempts for a compromise. >> look, i think it is two things. democrats think this is a winning political issue. war on women. banning contraception. of course, all of the catholics and the litigants here are talking about is going to the status quo ante of section months or a year ago. the other issue is idea logical. they think that the government should decide what counts as healthcare and what should be covered by insurance and if, you know, their silly little moral kwames ge qualms get in , that is too bad. >> talk about the debate among catholics. notre dame, father jenkins invited president obama to speak in 2009 despite the support for abortion rights and praised his willingness to engage. >> that is as the journal

editorial put out that is in the citation on his honorary degree laided for are his willingness to ensure gage and encouragement for people to bring their faith in the public square. if you read father jenkins statement, it as tough decision from where he is. he is now suing the commencent speaker for saying he is not willing to engage. >> and that is eck policit expe suit. >> if they had the traditional exemption they could have had a big step for the mandates without any real institutional objectives to it. and they got greedy. at tabor they were slammed 9-0. it as case. they argued a position so radical there is no ministerial exceptions. >> col len, what is the political fallout of this, this year, do you think? >> this is really a rude awakening for catholics who went out on a limb here and you

now you have a suit disproportionately targeting catholics because nine out of ten insurance plans already covered contraception. this is hitting them hard. i think that will be another issue in the politics here where they look and say hey, we went out on a limb for obama and voiced our concerns, by the way, before this law went into effect. >> and they still pushed through you with the regulation. but briefly on the politics here, joe. catholics aren't going to vote on this alone. they will vote on the economy and other things. how important is this? >> i think it helps feed the large unpopularity of the law. 55% of the country hopes it will berepealed and normal people look at this and go what is that all about. let's respect their rights of conscience. >> thank you all very much. when we come back, the facebook flop. the much-anticipated ipo turns into a legal and public relations nigh [ female announcer ] want to spend less and retire with more?

at e-trade, our free online tools and retirement specialists can help you build a personalized plan and execute it with a wide range of low cost investments. get a great plan and low cost investments at e-trade.

morning, boys. , i'm working on a cistern intake valve, and the guy hands me a locknut wrench. no way! i'm like, what is this, a drainpipe slipknot? wherever your business takes you, nobody keeps you on the road like progressive commercial auto. [ flo speaking japanese ] [ shouting in japanese ] we work wherever you work. now, that's progressive. call or click today.

well, it was one of of the largest and most hyped ipos of all time and it has quickly turned into a legal and public relations fiasco. facebook, its ceo, mark zuckerberg, morgan stanley and the big banks that underwrote the deal were sueded by a group of investors accusing them of withholding negative information about the social networking giant prior to the stock debut. the shares fell below the offer price setting off a debate who is to blame for the flop. mary, this was supposed to be a shining moment for capitalism and wall street particularly

after the last four awful years. we could support a big growing new company. what happened? >> well, they had problems right out of the block starting with nasdaq, paul. >> that is the exchange that it is traded on. >> that's right. about a 30 minute delay in the trading in the open and then it took nasdaq hours to get back to brokers to confirm if they had bought or shorted the stock. problems out of the gate with nasdaq but also problems with the underwriters and we have seen the "wall street journal" news side cover this extensively the last couple of days where the underwriters were accused of telling clients, hey, don't buy this stock, their big clients while at the same time allocating 25% of the offering to mom and pop investors and not telling them of their concerns. >> they were saying we lowered our earnings estimates because we don't think it is going to perform as well. is that kosher, james, they can do that? >> they were lowering their

estimates based on the information everybody had including the public small investor which is that facebook's revenue and profits were slowing. in fact, in the first quarter of this year they actually made less than they made in the fourth quarter of last year. for are an exciting tech company valued at a sky high level, this should have been a warning for investors and i think the question to morgan stanley and a the others would have been why didn't you lower estimates after that. they seem to have done what they should be doing here. >> if this is not illegal or not fraud as the lawsuits claim is it still a little unfair to tell the big clients okay here is our real advice and then say but we won't tell everybody else? >> it is a little unseemly but morgan stanley's clients pay for that access to their analysts so there is a reason why they were talking to those big clients. there are a lot of accusations flying out there and a lawsuit

now. there is no evidence there was any malfeasance at the underwriter based on the information we have now. >> the mistake was is mispricing the offering. obviously facebook is their are client, too, and they were trying to raise as much upon any as possible for facebook. when you have an ipo it is not good for anybody for the stock price to fall afterwards. bad for the company and reputation and bad are for the underwriter and wad for the investors. >> it is not clear how much of the decline since the opening until now is the result of pricing it the wrong way and how much is the nasdaq botch on day one. and keep in mind this is a technology company you are buying it not on fundamentals but because you believe it is the media platform of the 21st century. a big technological glitch on its debut is a big psychological factor. >> if the 11% fall on the first day was due to the glitch then

it would have recovered. you have seen facebook languish in the days. >> the amid a lot of negative media attention since then. >> or economic fundamentals. >> as getting on fundamentals or traditional valuations it will be worth his than it is now. people are betting on the future. underwriters it job is not to guarantee a rising stock price. it is trying to meet demand. when the big opening day pops happen often times people say you left money on the table for the company. remember the linked in issue if show only put a few shares out to the public. then people would say reflective of the value is that you are only offering a little bit of the company. >> i don't think anybody at morgan stanley is standing around this week and giving high-fives to each other and saying we raised a ton of money

for facebook, too bad that the stock dropped. when they go out to pitch other tech companies it is going to be a stain on their reputation. >> the last word is caveat investor. the internallist. when we come back, our hits and misses of the week. an [ dog ] i am a pro baller. 11 years playing the outfield, and i got no plans to retire. [ female announcer ] aging may slow a dog down, but iams helps keep dogs playinyear after year with our age-specific nutrition. and now, even for dogs 11 and older with new iams senior plus. it helps boost the immune response to that of an adult dog and helps fight signs of aging. [ dog ] i'll never be a bench-warmer. [ female announcer ] new iams senior plus. see the iams difference or your money back. [ dog ] i am an iams dog for life.

time for hits and misses of the week. james first to you. >> well, this is a big miss to the united states government for not getting fridhi out of pakistan. the doctor who helped lead us to the bin laden compound. critical in the operation to take down bin laden. we left him in the country and now he has been sentenced to prison. >> in pakistan. >> and sentenced to prison for 3 years. disgraceful. >> a not so fond farewell to

u.s. attorney in chicago patrick fitzgerald. he made his bones prosecuting legions of chicago politics. he high profile cases against scooter libby and conrad black. a hit to him for taking himself out of the position where he can do more harm. >> thank you. i agree with that one. all right, ma mary. >> a hit to space x which launched an unmanned space craft into orbit this week to dock with the international space station. this isn't just good news because we needing is to replace the space shuttle. it is good news because washington is slowly warming to the idea of private space travel and for poll texs with taxpayer dollars to spend that is the feal frontier. >> do you think we will see a private space launch that goes to the moon? >> i hope we do. space x is h heavily subsidized

by nasa but again we are moving in the right direction. >> if you have your own hit or miss send it to us. and join us on the web at fox news .com/journal. that is it for this week. thanks for watching. i'll paul gigot. captioned by closed captioning services, inc. on fox news watch. >> in the period from january to april of this year, the three newscasts discussed romney's wealth 27 times. the same period 2004 they discussed kerry's finances twice. >> is there a media double standard when it many coulds to reporting on the wealth of candidates? and why is this so important? >> stop attack private equity and jeremiah wright. this stuff has got to stop. >> newark mayor corey bookary rising star in the democratic party takes a shot at the obama campaign. how did the liberal press react. >> an act of sabotage. >> the polls have him up. the